UK threatening to pull out of the F-35 JSF programme if the US dose'nt share technology

Arghh to be fair the US will give the UK programing information for the weapons system, when we give them a order and a cheque.

Or BAe will just reverese engineer the thing. Wonder if it's USB / Plug and Play ready?

RAB

Did nobody realise that the picture was a joke????

You also forgot that the JSF is using a devlopment of the eurofighter's pilot helmet (again by BAE system)

I thought about saying something about it being a joke, but it was more fun to sit back and watch the reaction to it.

BAe will never make a stand against the USA its got far too much to loose than gain.
Be nice of it did USAF,USN,USMC find most of there aircraft & more grounded.

Be a real shame that $150 F-22 couldnt even taxi wouldnt it, but alas BAe is far too intrested in the present gravy train.

On a brighter note, the software release isnt that much of a issue after all we can simply steal them, or buy them from chinese or isreali, or as said above reverse engineering them should be easy enough.

American Mad Man said...

First, and what I suspect to be most important, is that the UK contributed LESS THEN 1% OF THE FUNDING for the JSF. So, please tell me why the US should have to foot the bill for this amazing aircraft, and then not reap the rewards of having it's own companies do the upkeep?

Actually the UK has provided 8% of the Engineering-Manufacturing Development costs, add this to the number of British firms that are actually involved in the technologies of developing the aircraft, as Stealth Spy has said...

British contribution :
2 billion $ funding for development (200 million alredy given)

> to buy 150 F-35's

> The JSF team includes BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce.

> Assembly of the plane at BAE Systems at Samlesbury, Lancashire, England.

> BAE Systems is responsible for the design and integration of the aft fuselage, horizontal and vertical tails and the wing-fold mechanism for the CV variant, using experience from the Harrier STOVL programme.

> BAE Systems Avionics in Edinburgh, Scotland will provide the laser systems of the JSF

> BAE Systems Information & Electronic Warfare Systems (IEWS) will be responsible for the JSF integrated electronic warfare suite, which will be installed internally.

> BAE is developing a new digital radar warning receiver for the F-35.

> BAE Systems Avionics will supply side stick and throttle controls

> Rolls Royce to desing and build the F136 engine for the JSF

> The C variant's vertical take off/ landing will have several british technologies

And it equates to a large proportion of British involvement.

Spacemunkey


[edit on 23-6-2005 by spacemunkey]

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
Did nobody realise that the picture was a joke????

I think it was obvious but stealth spy was just trying to deflect attention away from his embarrassing gaffe

I agree,

The UK have stood by the US on each of their "Adventures" over the years, and have bled with them. The thing that bugs me that as their countries parnoid leadership move on their friends have been put into the same caterogies as the nations that didn't want to help the US out.

As for the Codes, Westpoint these is aimed mainly at you, I know the aircrafts software code would be handed over once the aircraft is delievered, BUT its like me trying to edit the MSN Messenger Source Code without the proper software development application, I won't be able to read nor even EDIT the code. The source code for the software is VERY important, without it, we, the UK would require that the US provide a maintance team to fix OUR aircraft. How would you like it if the Harrier, required british RAF tech teams to fix it every time one of your USMC teams "bumped" into some thing.

Its not the fact that we "might" have to wait for the software development information or for imformation or technology rights, its the "Principle" of the thing, you say we are allies yet you treat us like the enemy.

- Philip

[edit on 23-6-2005 by gooseuk]

Another "principle of the matter", gooseuk....if the UK was being treated like the "enemy", as you so assert, mind you, if that was the case, the UK would not be apart of the project, or other projects, at all.

Your word usage, gooseuk, leads me to believe and conclude a variety of things from you, especially when placed against past postings and comments by you. Trying to tell us something about the US or the US and UK relationship that you are typically 'beating around the bush' to not say?




seekerof

how would you like it if you paid for a fllet of cars, helped to build it, had a perfectly capable staff of mechanics, but everytime you wanted to check the oil or water you had to get an outside group to come and do it. If they go ahead with the project, having to call in lockheed every time they need to check the flight control system, expect major cuts to the RAF and NAVY mechanical staffs.

As a not e to Stealth Spy's above comment...

BAe actually own a significant portion of Lockheed Martin and have recently acquired significant parts in of LM and others in corporate buyouts. So BAe are very much a part of the "US" aviation industry, wether they know it or not.

And.... 1% contribution? So the JSF is costing $200 billion? Thats an awful lot, don't you think? Are you sure about the figures there AMM?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Another "principle of the matter", gooseuk....if the UK was being treated like the "enemy", as you so assert, mind you, if that was the case, the UK would not be apart of the project, or other projects, at all.

Your word usage, gooseuk, leads me to believe and conclude a variety of things from you, especially when placed against past postings and comments by you. Trying to tell us something about the US or the US and UK relationship that you are typically 'beating around the bush' to not say?

seekerof

Greetings,

Interesting how you put that little post, I have to commend you on your technique. I am more than open to comment and standby and explain some of my comments in other threads on this forum, I apologise but as you have said, based on your past posts, your statements, that you may feel that the World is Against the US? Like so many americans I might add.

Yes, the Principle, Principles are some that have an important meaning for many people, not just in the UK, not just in the US or in France, Germany etc. Principles are what, breaks down and seperates the money grabbers from the people that actually want it to work. If you tell a person that they are your friend and then refuse them access to either a toy or comic book, your are either using that friend for your own gains or you are Lieing to that friend and lieing to your self.

"You will be treated how you treat others", an Old Irish Saying some people might like to read.

I hope that you haven't into the sterotyical view of some of the other members on this forum, that once they see a Red star, they assume that this person stands against the US. If you do a Search on Google, you still see what OPFOR stands for.

If you have read through my posts, you will see that I can't stand a number of things:

- The UK Armed Forces not being respected
- The Enemy not being respected
- Believing the Hype

If you make the assumptions that I might hate America, all I can say, is that its the prime example of New Age American Paranoia.

- Philip

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 23-6-2005 by gooseuk]

OK, I just couldn't stand it anymore.

What I see in this thread is a large number of people (not all) that obviously don't understand the ins and outs of how large, multi-million dollar (pound) military systems are engineered, manufactured, and developed.

Codes, codes, codes. All this talk of codes. The "code" that people are referring to is the software used to drive the major systems of this aircraft. The software is still in "beta" format. It is still being developed. It will still be incomplete in 2 years when the first operational aircraft are due to be delivered. I guarentee this. Software is the single most complex and difficult part of the system to finalize because it is so massive, and requires so much documentation and quality control.

I once worked for a multi-billion dollar company that was (is) producing a next-generation radar for the US Navy. We were being paid almost $200M to develop and deliver to the Navy one prototype radar. Do you know what was the major hold-up, and major drain on the budget? Not the antenna, not the transmitter, not even the supercomputer....it was the software. There were 2 labs with over 100 people working full-time day and night pounding out line-after-line of code to get this prototype working, and last I heard they are still working the bugs out.

To try to reduce the impact of developing a new software suite for the F-35, it was decided to import similar code from the F-22. Unfortunately for our partners, much of this code is classified and controlled, and cannot be exported (not yet, anyways), especially to those parties not involved or purchasing F-22's. The Air Force simply will not allow the keys to the F-22's revolutionary performance to be handed over to those without the need-to-know, no matter how trustworthy they may be. We simply have too much invested into the program to risk it.

The Brits will get the operational build software. But they will only get it when they need it. And they will need it when they are about to take delivery of purchased airframes - not before. There is nothing unfair or discriminatory about this. It is a standard government security policy, and normal business practice. Prime contractors do not reveal to their subcontractors the "keys to the kingdom" until they absolutely need them. And it is fair to assume that the transfer of proprietary knowledge between partners is equitable to the degree on which the percentages of that partnerships are based.

I suspect that there are two driving forces between this non-issue. 1st, I believe that there are forces in the UK who feel that the UK would be better served buy either developing an indiginous aircraft, or team with European partners. Not coincidentally, this would probably be much better for the British economy and large British firms. 2nd, I think that there are some people in the UK who are suffering from a case of bruised national honor, and pine for the days of Pax Britannica. Or, maybe they feel that they are no longer in the same position of political and military cooperation with the US that we have shared in the past. IMHO I believe that to be absolutely untrue. The UK-US relationship has always been "special" on many different levels, and I think that most folks in the UK would be genuinely surprised to find out just how warm most Americans feel about our British cousins across the pond.

You will get the code. Be patient. There is no need for angst and rancor.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Pyros]

Pyros,

You may be right in what you say but how do you explain the refusal to provide the proper software access for the systems on the Chinooks the UK bought?

Cheers

BHR

how would you like it if you paid for a fllet of cars, helped to build it, had a perfectly capable staff of mechanics, but everytime you wanted to check the oil or water you had to get an outside group to come and do it.

This is not the case, you are speaking as if the UK will never get the codes which is not true they will get them when either delivery of the JSF is close or upon the actual delivery itself.

WestPoint,

That was said with regards to the Chinooks and look how that turned out.

Let me simply say that "the word" of US aviation companies is not worth anything.

Cheers

BHR

BHR,

The need to independently validate source software code for avionics is a British requirement only. The U.S. and our other allies who purchase U.S. aircraft do not independently validate source code for avionic systems, unless major flaws or some kind of fraud is suspected.

Also, the requirement for the source code for these helicopter was not part of the purchase contract, in any way, shape, or form. The MoD buys some helos, suddenly discovers after they are delivered that they do not conform to a unique MoD safety requirement, so the MoD goes back to the manufacturer after the fact and asks for the source code for the system (this, despite the fact that every other single country in the world who fly these aircraft, including the DoD, have never asked the manufactuer for this code). And the MoD is miffed when they meet resistance from the manufacturer?

The UK Parliament issued an enlightening report on the subject. A few selected excerpts:

"Despite the fact that all the aircraft accepted from the contractor met, and in some cases exceeded, the contract, the Department accepted that the taxpayer had not been well served by the procurement of the Chinook Mk3. The contract did not specify fully all of the Department's requirements. The Department acknowledged that the whole project was flawed from the outset in 1995 and got worse after 1997".

"A key factor in the delay in bringing the Chinook Mk3 into service was the Department's failure to specify in the contract what its requirements were for independently validating the United States manufacturers' safety critical software codes for the avionics systems. The Department had incorrectly assumed that it could rely on a safety case based on the systems' similarity with the avionics systems used in the Royal Netherlands Air Force's Chinooks. The Department acknowledged, however, that, as with the Apache Attack Helicopter, it was not always necessary to have access to source codes to achieve adequate safety assurances. The Department currently operates the C17 aircraft within United States' safety parameters without having independently validated the avionics software codes".

"The Department needed to heed three lessons: there should be better risk reduction and more understanding of what was being undertaken before signing a contract; there should be more rigorous project review throughout the period of the procurement; and there needed to be a better understanding of the underlying safety issues, particularly where there was a unique British requirement for the independent validation of source software codes. The need to validate independently the software codes for the Chinook Mk3 had been a British requirement. Other countries, including the United States, were happy to fly the aircraft".

The full report can be found here.

Pyros,

Originally posted by Pyros
unique British requirement for the independent validation of source software codes. The need to validate independently the software codes for the Chinook Mk3 had been a British requirement. Other countries, including the United States, were happy to fly the aircraft".

What are you saying in this instance?

Are you saying that because the US were using a similar aircraft the British should not be fully diligent in attempting to ensure safety for those using the aircraft.

Or are you saying that only the British bother to check software codes and that in the US it is just assumed by the operator that everything is correct?

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by owell
On a brighter note, the software release isnt that much of a issue after all we can simply steal them, or buy them from chinese or isreali, or as said above reverse engineering them should be easy enough.

It will not be possible for the UK to obtain source codes if they get the JSF.

It like you have Windows XP but you still cant get its C++ source codes.

The only way to get the codes is to make the US give it to them.

And what is this nonsense about getting it from China or Israel ??

IMO the UK has reached the "point of no return" in the JSF programme. If the UK withdraws form the programme now, then it will stand to lose more than what it would gain if it took the F-35 without these source codes.




[edit on 23-6-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Originally posted by Pyros
unique British requirement for the independent validation of source software codes. The need to validate independently the software codes for the Chinook Mk3 had been a British requirement. Other countries, including the United States, were happy to fly the aircraft".

What are you saying in this instance?

I am not saying anything. These are the words of the British Parliament. The statement is fairly self-evident. The UK, for some reason which is unique amoung all other users of this aircraft, required additional validation of the code. The implication is that the MoD asked for something that didn't fullfill their needs, and that added bureacracy in the acquisition process imposed unforeseen restrictions on the acceptance of these aircraft after they were already delivered. It also implies that the UK doesn't trust the safety standards for this aircraft, despite the fact that the manufacturer, the US gov't, and all other user nations readily accept these safety standards.

Are you saying that because the US were using a similar aircraft the British should not be fully diligent in attempting to ensure safety for those using the aircraft

.

No, you can be as cautious as you want. But, if you decide that safety is an issue, and that US quality control is inadequate, and that the safety track record of a 40-year-old design is irrelavent, then you had better negotiate you additional safety requirements up front. No tickee - no shirtee.

Or are you saying that only the British bother to check software codes and that in the US it is just assumed by the operator that everything is correct?

If this is so, why hasn't the MoD ever asked for the code for other US aircraft in the UK inventory, or that have been purchased in the past? Where is the indignant protest over the lack of providing the code for the C-17's? Or any other aircraft we build and you fly, for that matter?

Your MoD bought a bunch of helicopters and didn't understand their own safety requirements before they made the purchase. Half way through the process, they changed the mission for these units, and added new avionics to them that were not part of the original purchase. When they did not meet your new specs, they demanded the code for the aircraft from the manufacturer, which was not part of the deal, and subject to additional negotiations and clauses. When they didn't get everything they wanted from the manufactuer, it was a convenient charge to make to deflect attention away from the bungling of the original purchasing problem. Lets face it, the Pentagon isn't the only one that pays too much for things they don't need, and for things designed to do something other than the requirements they were originally purchased for.

And since the MoD was not a partner in the design and development of the CH-47, on what basis do you claim to have the right to these source codes anyways? If you read the report by Paliament, you would note that even if the MoD got these codes, they probably wouldn't be able to use them anyways!

"The process of analysis is, however, time consuming and expensive and there is no guarantee of success because the legacy software is not amenable to the techniques required to confirm the robustness of the software design".

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This is not the case, you are speaking as if the UK will never get the codes which is not true they will get them when either delivery of the JSF is close or upon the actual delivery itself.

The US say they will not get it, both now and after delivery.

Read this :

U.K. Shouldn't Expect Technology Access on JSF : top Pentagon official
The U.K. shouldn't expect access to design data on the Joint Strike Fighter in return for helping fund the $244 billion program, a top Pentagon official said.

A lot of partners don't seem to quite understand that this isn't an old-style airplane program,'' said General Jeffery Kohler in an interview at the Paris Air Show. "This is not an offset program or an industrial development program'' that awards contracts in return for funding.

The U.K. is providing $2 billion of development funding toward the Lockheed Martin Corp.-led project. "We've put in a lot more than that,'' said Kohler, director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees foreign military sales. "The U.S. isn't in a position to say you've invested a bit so here you go, here are the blueprints to the Joint Strike Fighter.''

The U.S. Congress's failure to approve an exemption for Britain from rules governing the transfer of arms technology has hurt companies including London-based BAE, Europe's biggest weapons maker, and Roll-Royce Group Plc, both suppliers to the JSF, said Alexandra Ashbourne, a defense analyst who heads London- based Ashbourne Strategic Consulting Ltd.

"There is a huge amount of frustration about the lack of progress on this issue,'' Ashbourne said. "There is real resentment within the U.K. government that despite being the most loyal ally in Iraq, we have nothing to show for it.''

The U.K. is buying about 150 of a version that uses jump-jet technology supplied by Rolls-Royce. BAE is supplying electronics and airframe parts.

And the most shocking part :

Manufacturing know-how developed by BAE and Rolls-Royce at the companies' U.S. divisions cannot be shared with their British operations because of strict Pentagon rules.

Read the full article ............

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Stealth Spy]